but a necessary process of consciousness.
— Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling
In this sense, myth is neither a relic of pre-modern naivety nor merely a product of collective imagination that disappears with the progress of reason. Rather, it points to a deeper structure of consciousness itself. It does not arise from arbitrariness, but rather where thought reaches its limits. Any political analysis that ignores this symbolic dimension remains necessarily incomplete.
For, as Ernst Cassirer puts it, “human beings live not only in a physical world, but also in a symbolic one.” Political reality is not limited to institutions, procedures, or interests, but is equally constituted by images, symbols, and narratives that give it meaning in the first place. The state is founded not solely on laws, but on the meaning attributed to it; community arises not only from interests, but from shared ideas; and history functions not as a mere sequence of facts, but as a narratable, credible form.
In this sense, myth appears not as an addition to politics, but as one of its prerequisites. It does not merely explain the world, but shapes it: it determines who “we” are and who “the others” are; it marks the boundaries of the possible and the legitimate. It operates not on the level of truth, but on that of the acceptable—it does not convince, it frames.
Yet this symbolic order is less a response to the world than a relief from it. This is where Hans Blumenberg’s insight takes on particular significance: “Myth is a way of dealing with the uncertainty of the world.” Myth does not explain—it makes the inexplicable bearable. It does not resolve contradictions, but rather gives them a form that remains livable. This is precisely where its political efficacy lies: it does not end conflicts, but makes them manageable.
Politics thus appears not as the antithesis of myth, but as a field that can scarcely do without it. It operates on premises that cannot be fully justified rationally, and at the same time draws on symbolic forms to create a sense of obligation and make this appear self-evident.
The crucial question is therefore not whether myth can be overcome, but rather: Who shapes it—and in what form reality is redesigned through it.
Leave a Reply